Arguably that's because BECMI was a line unto itself: 36 levels, 4-5 core rulebooks (depending how you count), and a massive amount of support material.
Is Wotc Slipping?
- Thread starter Stormonu
- Start date
- Status
Arguably that's because BECMI was a line unto itself: 36 levels, 4-5 core rulebooks (depending how you count), and a massive amount of support material.
Dark Mistress
First Post
I was just going to give you xp and say i agree. But it says I need to spread xp around. Who knew. Anyways, while I am not a fan of WotC that is mostly cause of their PR and customer relations and a few things like how they pulled the PDF's etc. I don't want DnD or even WotC to fail. I would like to see WotC be more costumer friendly and reach out to the community more.
I also agree I think 4e is under performing. Now what does that mean in the big picture? That's hard to say, it seems fairly evident that in the book trade from enough sources that Pathfinder is rivaling 4e. Of course that doesn't take into account all sources of information, such as other distribution forms, Paizo's subscription model, WotC DDI model etc. All it really tells us is that many sources point to 4e doing worse than most expected and Pathfinder is doing better than most expected and thats all we really know for sure.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
It does seem like WotC is turtling up - once upon a time they were quite open in their communications, and then, somewhat before 4e appeared on the horizon, they closed channels.
Symptoms:
The manner in which they shut down PDFs. (Likely in preparation for their DDI, though they do not cover the same ground in any substantial way.)
The manner they ended licenses, even though their own plan was to have extremely limited support for settings.
No notice that 4e was in the works, to the point of outright denial. ('Cause lying to your customers is always good....)
Waffling on the GSL. (Thus spurring Paizo to strike off on their own.)
Most recently the release of the Monster Builder and the rather misleading e-mail preceding the release.
I think that a large amount of their difficulties could be, or could have been, handled with better outreach and communication.
The Auld Grump
Aberzanzorax
Hero
I'll stand alone.
Maybe I'm the only person brave enough to say it, or maybe I'm the only person bizarre enough to feel this way.
I DO want WotC to fail (with some MAJOR caveats, please allow me to put in some context).
Here's the main thing. I don't feel as though they've been very "nice" to their customers, for many of the reasons that the Auldgrump mentions above. I'd like the collective behavior of WotC as a company (including communication, policies, etc) to improve. I'd like them to learn that there are better ways to conduct business, and I think the only way they'll learn that is with a negative impact on their wallets.
Here's the other thing. I don't want them to cease to exist. I don't want D&D to end. When I say I want WotC to fail, I mean I want them to have enough of a negative impact on their wallets that they learn better ways to treat customers, gaming stores, business partners, etc. I want them to "fail" in the sense that they get a wakeup call, but not so badly that people are fired, divisions shut down, etc.
Here's the last thing. As the (or a) industry leader, I want this better policy, communication, relationship forming, and HOBBY ENRICHING behavior from them because it directly affects the health of the hobby. I think that one reason why Paizo is so beloved, and has garnered such a response is because they are doing the things I wish WotC was doing.
So, in the end, what I'd like to see is WotC start acting like an industry leader that is conducive to the health of the industry or to fail and have another take their place as leader.
Maybe I'm the only person brave enough to say it, or maybe I'm the only person bizarre enough to feel this way.
I DO want WotC to fail (with some MAJOR caveats, please allow me to put in some context).
Here's the main thing. I don't feel as though they've been very "nice" to their customers, for many of the reasons that the Auldgrump mentions above. I'd like the collective behavior of WotC as a company (including communication, policies, etc) to improve. I'd like them to learn that there are better ways to conduct business, and I think the only way they'll learn that is with a negative impact on their wallets.
Here's the other thing. I don't want them to cease to exist. I don't want D&D to end. When I say I want WotC to fail, I mean I want them to have enough of a negative impact on their wallets that they learn better ways to treat customers, gaming stores, business partners, etc. I want them to "fail" in the sense that they get a wakeup call, but not so badly that people are fired, divisions shut down, etc.
Here's the last thing. As the (or a) industry leader, I want this better policy, communication, relationship forming, and HOBBY ENRICHING behavior from them because it directly affects the health of the hobby. I think that one reason why Paizo is so beloved, and has garnered such a response is because they are doing the things I wish WotC was doing.
So, in the end, what I'd like to see is WotC start acting like an industry leader that is conducive to the health of the industry or to fail and have another take their place as leader.
Wicht
Hero
Part of the problem is "failure" can be a loaded word and most people are going to equate "failure" with "cease to exist."
I can agree with the idea that, in, and so far, as people are "misbehaving" or doing harmful things, to themselves or others, I want them to fail. That is I don't want them to have success in doing bad. In business, this is a tricky judgment call though. For some companies/businesses, spartan service which provides just the essentials may be a recipe for success. In others it should be anathema.
I think your larger point, however, is that what you really want is for people to learn the right lessons from their failures (i.e. mistakes, things that did not work). WotC has done things that, for many, just don't work. That is, they were, for us, failures. What we want is for them to learn from that and cater to our desires as a company by producing both products and services we want. In fairness, and conversely, however, we must admit they do seem to be meeting the needs of some people and that what I think of as failure, they may, in fact, percieve to be some measure of success.
WOTC won't fail. The D&D line might fail. The same way Heroscape failed or DDM failed, or any other WOTC/Hasbro product has failed. It has minimal impact on the company as a whole (probably more so for WOTC than for Hasbro). They'll just refocus on products that are currently strong. Then, in a few years, someone will re-evaluate the product line to see if it's feasible again. Meanwhile, D&D will be boxed up and the IP will be sitting over at Hasbro central gathering dust as all discontinued Hasbro IPs do.
BryonD
Hero
I think the real value of D&D ties to its wide name recognition.
I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of the people who immediately know what D&D is, have never played.
This whole conversation is about *right now*. I think WotC is making good money, but I think they could have made a lot more. And I have no idea if they are making the kind of return they wanted or not. But, again, that is just about right now and how the tabletop gamer market is experiencing things.
If they canceled 4E tomorrow and sat on the brand for two years and released 5E in 2013, the brand identity amongst the "other 95%" would not be significantly impacted.
To be clear, I'm not saying that is in any way a good or reasonable plan, it is just an extreme scenario under which "D&D" still doesn't fail.
It isn't zero impact. A more popular 4E would have been better for the brand value and a less popular 4E has a negative impact on the brand value. But these are short term variations on the big picture. Who knows maybe something else can come along and being just "a little bit weaker" is enough to sink the brand. But I think that is very remote.
Part of the cultural awareness of D&D ties back to the very imagery of the name itself. Even if "Pathfinder" became the household term for geeks pretending to be elves in their mom's basement ten years from now, the term "Pathfinder" will never provoke the same association as the term "Dungeons and Dragons".
I think the D&D brand will do fine.
I just also am convinced that the day "the boss" said "go" on 4E, they were picturing a much larger fan base than has played out. Whatever they are making now, they could have been making more and I'd be shocked if they were not planning and expecting to be making more.
I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of the people who immediately know what D&D is, have never played.
This whole conversation is about *right now*. I think WotC is making good money, but I think they could have made a lot more. And I have no idea if they are making the kind of return they wanted or not. But, again, that is just about right now and how the tabletop gamer market is experiencing things.
If they canceled 4E tomorrow and sat on the brand for two years and released 5E in 2013, the brand identity amongst the "other 95%" would not be significantly impacted.
To be clear, I'm not saying that is in any way a good or reasonable plan, it is just an extreme scenario under which "D&D" still doesn't fail.
It isn't zero impact. A more popular 4E would have been better for the brand value and a less popular 4E has a negative impact on the brand value. But these are short term variations on the big picture. Who knows maybe something else can come along and being just "a little bit weaker" is enough to sink the brand. But I think that is very remote.
Part of the cultural awareness of D&D ties back to the very imagery of the name itself. Even if "Pathfinder" became the household term for geeks pretending to be elves in their mom's basement ten years from now, the term "Pathfinder" will never provoke the same association as the term "Dungeons and Dragons".
I think the D&D brand will do fine.
I just also am convinced that the day "the boss" said "go" on 4E, they were picturing a much larger fan base than has played out. Whatever they are making now, they could have been making more and I'd be shocked if they were not planning and expecting to be making more.
ThatGuyThere
Explorer
Nae. Ye have my sword.
I also feel WotC should "fail", because they made - several, in sequence - marketing errors (and that's not counting 'they didn't market 4e to me' as an error).
("Fail", not "die". I feel the industry needs WotC alive.)
As a business, the only way for them to learn not to do that is negative consequences. The only way for them to learn that some of the paths they have chosen were ill-thought-out is to lose money.
I only regret that the "money lost" over the PDF choices will, as far as WotC is concerned, forever remain hypothetical. If I could give them negative-money, to let them know I <would> have given them money, but couldn't, I would.
Here is the thing. I do not believe that Wotc can or wants to be the hobby industry leader anymore. What they do want is to maintain the brand value of D&D, because this is what Hasbro ultimately wants.
They know that, as a brand, Dungeons & Dragons will most probably outlast Warcraft, because Warcraft is connected with the merits of a technology product that is going to be outdated, most probably in the next 5 years.
Wotc, wanted to enter the digital realm. This was their intention with 4e. 4e was structured on the idea of a product being cool and manageable by a digital environment. Thus the utterly structured tactical encounter environment that 4e limits its balance upon. As a player, you do not want to fight monsters and traps, you do not want to swing mighty swords: your job now is to be a good defender, however the game rules tell you how to do it.
OTOH, Paizo has been trying to focus on the merits of 3.5e as a traditional tabletop rpg.
- Status
